i understand that. but another user's pronouns in this thread are e/em/eir. and to be honest i have never seen those used anywhere before right now. i'm trying to understand where pronouns like those come from.
you know i think you've just changed my view. i guess it doesn't really matter WHY someone labels themselves something. alright, i'll use any preferred pronouns even if it makes me feel a little goofy because it's for their sake, not mine. thanks for the video link.
Case by case basis. But someone mentioned to me that they/them/their exists as both a plural and a singular, which is less precise. Also that they/them/their has its traditions in being neutral toward the existing gender binary, and as such is 'loaded,' so to speak.
It's not so much that certain pronouns aren't okay, but rather insufficient. New pronouns are experimental and exploratory and a way of interfacing with the abstraction that is human identity, much like names. There's a tendency to look at linguistic processes as static and technical, but it's a fluid thing.
thinking about it akin to names is interesting. i haven't considered that. one more question though, i looked at the list of pronouns in the settings and one option is "doe/deer". i don't mean to be insensitive but that seems silly to me. is there a line that can be crossed where pronouns go from a form of gender expression to what seems to me to just be a nickname of sorts? or does anything go? again i'm sorry if this is insensitive. i just don't have a lot of experience with this topic.
Assuming it's in good faith, there isn't really a "line."
Now you could say that if every single person had their own unique pronouns that, essentially, instead of there being pronouns, every individual would then possess four names. This is neither good nor bad; such conventions of language do not possess moral value, and 'efficiency' or information density is not inherently valued in language as any linguist can tell you. Again: this is exploratory, speculative, and meditative.
how would this translate to here and now though? i can't see the majority populace agreeing to refer to someone using those pronouns.
and to add, do you know if there's been any research into the neopronouns (which i just looked up the name of) we're discussing? i know that transgender and nonbinary identities are supported by science but to me that seems a far cry to referring to yourself as doe. i guess i could google this myself but i'm a lazy fuck
Does it matter if they do agree? It's not a dedicated national campaign, it's a point of personal use. On an Internet forum about a comedy podcast, no less.
Research? Maybe. Someone probably knows more in that regard than I do. But again, this isn't scientific or clinical. Think of this in the more abstract or artistic in sense-making. It's not meant to rewrite English.
it is meant to rewrite English :) how else can we deconstruct the social construct of gender while it's embedded in our language?
but yeah, research here doesn't really make sense:
there are gender identities other than male and female and the neutrality of they/them is wrong/dysphoria inducing for some people with those identities.
the only way to learn someone's gender identity and pronouns is to ask them. that means we have to trust the answers that people give us, whatever our initial feelings about the ridiculousness or "normality" of any particular identity or choice of preferred pronouns.
consequently, all science can tell us is that some people prefer some unique and uncommon pronouns. we respect them because we respect the people.
@benny I also want to challenge you to consider why your feelings about someone else's pronouns are what matters here. shouldn't we emphasize the feelings of the people who are being referred to by these pronouns? after all, they're telling you that this is how they wish to be treated.
that's actually ridiculously managable and pretty much everyone unwittingly follows that pronoun system already for the words "he" and "them" (sock it to 'em, etc)
i understand that. but another user's pronouns in this thread are e/em/eir. and to be honest i have never seen those used anywhere before right now. i'm trying to understand where pronouns like those come from.
S-h/e
Th/em
Th/eir
Or do you mean the reasoning behind their usage to begin with?
oh wow. i'm obtuse aren't i. i guess i would also be interested in why they/them/their aren't okay.
deleted by creator
you know i think you've just changed my view. i guess it doesn't really matter WHY someone labels themselves something. alright, i'll use any preferred pronouns even if it makes me feel a little goofy because it's for their sake, not mine. thanks for the video link.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Case by case basis. But someone mentioned to me that they/them/their exists as both a plural and a singular, which is less precise. Also that they/them/their has its traditions in being neutral toward the existing gender binary, and as such is 'loaded,' so to speak.
It's not so much that certain pronouns aren't okay, but rather insufficient. New pronouns are experimental and exploratory and a way of interfacing with the abstraction that is human identity, much like names. There's a tendency to look at linguistic processes as static and technical, but it's a fluid thing.
thinking about it akin to names is interesting. i haven't considered that. one more question though, i looked at the list of pronouns in the settings and one option is "doe/deer". i don't mean to be insensitive but that seems silly to me. is there a line that can be crossed where pronouns go from a form of gender expression to what seems to me to just be a nickname of sorts? or does anything go? again i'm sorry if this is insensitive. i just don't have a lot of experience with this topic.
Assuming it's in good faith, there isn't really a "line."
Now you could say that if every single person had their own unique pronouns that, essentially, instead of there being pronouns, every individual would then possess four names. This is neither good nor bad; such conventions of language do not possess moral value, and 'efficiency' or information density is not inherently valued in language as any linguist can tell you. Again: this is exploratory, speculative, and meditative.
how would this translate to here and now though? i can't see the majority populace agreeing to refer to someone using those pronouns.
and to add, do you know if there's been any research into the neopronouns (which i just looked up the name of) we're discussing? i know that transgender and nonbinary identities are supported by science but to me that seems a far cry to referring to yourself as doe. i guess i could google this myself but i'm a lazy fuck
Does it matter if they do agree? It's not a dedicated national campaign, it's a point of personal use. On an Internet forum about a comedy podcast, no less.
Research? Maybe. Someone probably knows more in that regard than I do. But again, this isn't scientific or clinical. Think of this in the more abstract or artistic in sense-making. It's not meant to rewrite English.
it is meant to rewrite English :) how else can we deconstruct the social construct of gender while it's embedded in our language?
but yeah, research here doesn't really make sense:
@benny I also want to challenge you to consider why your feelings about someone else's pronouns are what matters here. shouldn't we emphasize the feelings of the people who are being referred to by these pronouns? after all, they're telling you that this is how they wish to be treated.
Go search the comments here doe explained why deer uses those pro nouns specifically. It may help you understand.
that's actually ridiculously managable and pretty much everyone unwittingly follows that pronoun system already for the words "he" and "them" (sock it to 'em, etc)
Those specific ones are called Spivak pronouns .